Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
16.4 weeks
23.6 weeks
n/a
1 reports
4
3
Accepted
Motivation: I found the revision process too long, but the revisions improved the ms.
n/a
n/a
10 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Even though an editor from another, related journal (Expert Systems with Applications) proposed to transfer the manuscript to this journal for reasons of fit, the editor of ASC rejected it straight away because it was deemed out of scope for the journal.
n/a
n/a
9 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
n/a
n/a
13 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The main reason for rejection given by the editor was that the manuscript primarly considered a validation study, and that BRM tends not to publish validation studies.
n/a
n/a
0 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
n/a
n/a
28 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
10.3 weeks
44.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Accepted
3.5 weeks
8.5 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
5.0 weeks
6.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
7.6 weeks
13.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
Motivation: One review was of good quality, constructive and definitely improved the manuscript. The other review was extensive and perceived as aggressive and abusive with words being used like nonsensical, clumsy, incorrect, rudimentary, should not be accepted, too elementary, too vague. Some reviewers apparently lack sensitivity for what ever reasons I can only guess. I just want to mention that these types of reviews are unfair and hurt. In the end the editor handled this review process correctly but in my opinion the editor should have taken action earlier in the process, whether by editing this review before sending it our or in doubt of the quality of the manuscript, sending the manuscript to another reviewer.
10.9 weeks
11.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: I am very happy with the review process and thankful for the immense effort put into the manuscript by the reviewers and Editor. I particularly thank the Editor for being helpful and encouraging, this makes a great difference for young researchers. SS&M follows a rigorous review process and provides a platform for health researchers who are from interdisciplinary disciplines.
6.7 weeks
6.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
1
2
Rejected
Motivation: The reviewers did not appear to be experts on the topic. The comments were not at all harsh, but showed lack of knowledge of both the state of the art and the terminology used in the field.

I also did not really appreciate the suggestion to revise the manuscript and send it to their much more expensive "sister" journal.
11.4 weeks
15.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
4
Accepted
18.0 weeks
18.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
3
Rejected
Motivation: The editors explained the delayed decision, because of the need for a third reviewer. They shortly summarized the different positions and key arguments, based on which they decided to reject the paper. They did this in a constructive way.
8.9 weeks
12.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
3
Accepted
Motivation: The reviews were brief (~1 paragraph) and unhelpful, but the associate editor gave extensive comments that were helpful and appreciated, I think because s/he saw the reviews as insufficient. 3 months of the total time was my tardiness in getting revisions back. Positive experience overall.
16.1 weeks
16.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
5
Accepted
24.1 weeks
24.1 weeks
n/a
1 reports
2
3
Rejected
62.4 weeks
62.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
2
Rejected
Motivation: A long time was taken (more than a year). No mistakes were found. No reason was given for rejection and reviews did not provide an opinion of the scientific value of the paper.
n/a
n/a
35 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: The editor provided a very fair rationale for the rejection and offered some helpful feedback. That said, it is extremely unfortunate that it took five weeks to provide a simple desk rejection. It should not take 5 weeks for an editor to read a paper, reject it, and offer one or two sentences of feedback.
6.6 weeks
6.6 weeks
n/a
4 reports
3
5
Rejected
Motivation: The manuscript was processed very quickly and efficiently. The editor gave a detailed reply justifying why he rejected the paper and did encourage us to resubmit the paper if we decided to expand it into a larger research paper.
69.4 weeks
69.4 weeks
n/a
1 reports
2
1
Rejected
Motivation: 16 months for review is unacceptable. I waited patiently until the 5th month and only received excuses about the length of the review process. I asked to withdraw my paper after 12 months, and the editorial staff could not complete this request properly.

The quality of the review was fine, and the article was eventually published elsehwere.
1.0 weeks
3.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
12.8 weeks
12.8 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Rejected
Motivation: Some of the reviewer feedback was very helpful in a manuscript revision which was then submitted elsewhere. It was disappointing that one of the reviewers did not find the work of interest to the journal, leading to the paper rejection.
3.0 weeks
3.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Rejected
Motivation: One reviewer was positive and constructive, but the other reviewer apart from being rude, did not seemed to be familiar with technical details of similar published studies and also inquired about details which were explicitly stated in the submitted manuscript. Editor was helpful.
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
7.8 weeks
10.8 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
4
Accepted
Motivation: Review duration was average, reviewers were helpful and constructive.
10.3 weeks
10.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
3
Rejected
10.0 weeks
17.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: The editor was very helpful. I was happy with the submission process and would recomend this journal.
19.4 weeks
19.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
4
Rejected
n/a
n/a
5 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation: Editor responded to my questions on the reason for rejection without review
7.1 weeks
19.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
0.9 weeks
1.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
10.7 weeks
18.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
Motivation: This was a smooth process overall. The submission of the revised manuscript was delayed due to my maternity leave which added about two months to the process.
14.4 weeks
83.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
Motivation: The editor in chief as well as the second reviewer give me piece of precious feedback on my paper. The turnaround time was quick.
20.3 weeks
35.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
0
Rejected
Motivation: The entire process took 10.5 months, well beyond the "fast turnaround" and decision time that the journal advertises. We did extensive review in response to the first and second reviews. Mostly in response to a single reviewer. On the second review, one reviewer indicated that the revisions were acceptable, but the second reviewer raised a whole set of new criticisms (different from the first review).

The final decision was that the manuscript was not interesting for the general audience of the journal, a critique raised on the first and second reviews. We were extremely disappointed that this decision was not made by the editor after 5 months or 8 months, the first and second reviews, by the editor. To ask the authors to do more work, and then have the manuscript rejected, not based on the responses to the critiques but on suitability and interest, was very frustrating.
n/a
n/a
27 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)